Collecting Original Comic art: What is it really about?

[Illiterati-migration]

And wasn't the guy who wrote the email in the first place just trying to push the idea of cover recreations anyway? Doesn't that seem like he has a vested interest in downplaying the "value" or "importance" of original art?

 

I really don't remember. And yes, I am too lazy to go back and find out.

[dadaist]

The technology exists to produce a perfect or near-perfect facsimile of everything from Dolly the cloned sheep to the old $20 bill to most fine paintings. Does that make the originals worthless? This argument is beyond ridiculous.

 

Hey Gene

 

Your points on this discussion are well taken. And I do agree that making duplicates from an original does not impact its value. But then again, how would one quantify this?

 

Nonetheless, I do think that an argument can be made for "devaluing" a piece purely through repetition of appearance, and in some cases accessibility.

 

Without getting into too much detail, I inherited some original art from a family estate in the 80's. When I turned 21, I got to know one of the estate planners, who incidentally became a good friend many years later. His advice at the time was to put the art away in safekeeping until I knew what I wanted to do with it.

 

Several years back, I stayed in New York for a month on business, and hung out with him. It was during this time that I met a guy who was aggressively working on a project: to create a central body of work which consisted of all of Robert Crumb original art. His intention was to publish a book.

 

Why do you think an advisor in original art would advise me not to display my original art pieces publicly if I had no intention of selling the art?

 

I will share with you one of his reasons: the owner will always yield higher returns on a piece which has never been made publicly available. Something to do with raising shock value and compulsivness in an environment of competitive bidding.

 

Do you agree/disagree with this opinion?

[delekkerste]

Why do you think an advisor in original art would advise me not to display my original art pieces publicly if I had no intention of selling the art?

 

I will share with you one of his reasons: the owner will always yield higher returns on a piece which has never been made publicly available. Something to do with raising shock value and compulsivness in an environment of competitive bidding.

 

Do you agree/disagree with this opinion?

 

I think in some cases this may prove to be correct, but as a whole I would disagree. Of course, you don't want to overexpose an image (or any other asset that derives its value purely from human emotions), but on the other hand, recognition and publicity generally help the price of an asset. What was it that Hannibal Lecter said in Silence of the Lambs? Something like: "What do we covet? What we see every day."

 

In most cases, I would think more exposure is better than less. Would Renoir's "Le Moulin de la Galette" be worth more if it had just been tucked away in a billionaire's basement for decades instead of millions of people having admired it at the Musee d'Orsay and through posters & reproductions? The answer is an unequivocal no. Sure, college students may have $10 posters of it on their wall, but there's no question that there is added value in owning the original of a piece that is widely recognizable.

 

Now on the other hand, there is such a thing as too much exposure. Just ask Paris Hilton.

 

Gene

[dadaist]

Now on the other hand, there is such a thing as too much exposure. Just ask Paris Hilton.